I agree completely that God does not create anything that goes to waste, even though I can't reconcile all applications of the principle. That those temporal things—which I described as made to "be no more"—are not wasted, to me, has to do also with the fact that I assume the things of this earth are not "the real" but only pictures of "the real" things of Heaven. (And by that I don't mean to say that those temporal things are not real).
Here is an illustration of what I am getting at. There is a scientific phenomenon known as "trophic cascade," where small, seemingly innocuous changes have far-reaching, unpredictable consequences. A clear example of this was seen when gray wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and it actually resulted in changing the course of rivers, among other things (
YouTube). It would not make any sense to suggest that these wolves might as well have never existed, because none of these changes would make sense without them.
(I remember watching a nature documentary from the BBC several years ago, hosted by Chris Packham, I believe, and every episode explored these mind-blowing trophic cascades that nobody could have guessed, like how an invasive mushroom led to a change in the songs of a native bird species which resulted in a particular kind of shrub going extinct. You think to yourself, "How the hell?" But then he shows you how it all interconnects and your mind is blown.)
So, my point was that if nothing is wasted, if everything in some way serves to accomplish God's purposes, then it is incoherent to talk as if creatures that cease to exist might as well have never existed, from God's eternal perspective (i.e., "as God sees apart from time"). This is especially true for unrepentant sinners who cease to exist; their manifold sins against a holy God had grave and eternal significance to God. To me, it just would not make sense to say that "if an unrepentant sinner ceases to exist, then, for all intents and purposes, he never did exist—as God sees apart from time."
... it is ludicrous, to me, that anything can cease to exist, and particularly that anything made in the image of God can cease to exist.
What I am hoping you can do is explain WHY it is ludicrous. But then maybe you can't.
Are you familiar with the
argumentum ad lapidem fallacy? I'm trying to get you to avoid that one.
My bad. I didn't know annihilationists believe in an "eternal punishment" as such. To them, does eternal death equate with eternal non-existence?
As far as I understand things (which can be mistaken), they see two kinds of death in scripture,
spiritual separation from God (dead) and
metaphysical separation from God (uncreated). Those who remain spiritually separated from God in the here and now end up being metaphysically separated from God in the hereafter, cast out from the presence of the Lord. This is the idea at the root of eternal death, for God alone is the source of existence (creation and providence)—even his own (aseity). "I am the resurrection and the life," Jesus said. "The one who lives and believes in me will never die." Since countless believers HAVE died physically, he must be saying that they will never experience metaphysical separation from God; they will "not perish" but have eternal life. They don't perish, they sleep—until that great day when God calls them forth. It is those who live not and believe not in him that will surely perish (metaphysical separation).
On the other side of this coin is a
metaphysical connection (being created) and a
spiritual connection (being regenerated).
I like the thought that the separation from God is the antithesis to our unity in Heaven with God, who is our very sustenance. But I know that He is the very sustainer of existence itself, so it would seem to be not a perfect antithesis. I expect if I was to show this observation to an annihilationist, they would delight in the notion that theirs is a more perfect antithesis.
I don't think annihilationists see that as the antithesis. A spiritual connection with God (alive) is in contrast to a spiritual separation from God (dead), and a metaphysical connection with God (created) is in contrast to a metaphysical separation from God (uncreated).
To my thinking, it is a sloughing of terms to say that the damned will "become immortal." We do that a lot, though. We say that they will live in a continuing death, or words like that. I think it just means that they will not entirely cease to exist.
The one who says the wicked will "become immortal" (or "be made immortal") has implicitly recognized that the wicked are mortal—and that lands him in the conditional immortality camp. Well, we can't have that, of course, so let's fabricate a doctrine bereft of any scriptural warrant.
I'm not sure of your meaning [when you say] "intrinsic to human nature."
By "intrinsic" to human nature I mean "belonging naturally to" human nature. "An intrinsic property is a property that a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Intrinsic and extrinsic properties"). There is only one being to whom immortality is intrinsic, or who possess it in and of himself, and that is God (1 Tim 6:16). We are mortal, and it is only believers who are clothed with immortality at the last trumpet. The wicked remain mortal as they face their punishment.
In the common worldview, humans and all other things are, once-existent, intrinsically so, creator-irrelevant. Obviously, I don't hold to that. So I will agree that immortality is not intrinsic to the human nature.
Then you affirm conditional immortality. And now you need to explore and flesh out what that means, for it has far-reaching implications.
But "mortality" does not equal "subject to final annihilation."
No, it means that the wicked, in order to suffer eternal conscious torment, must be made immortal. God must sustain their existence forever and ever, as none but God is self-existent. Where do we find that in scripture? And how do we make sense of the apparent contradiction involved in the wicked being cut off from God but still metaphysically connected to him? How does that work, according to scripture?
As I read it in Scripture, the lake of fire is not just judgement—it is suffering.
And those are exegetical issues that can be explored. Here is something interesting to consider: Can you maintain the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell without citing the book of Revelations? There is a good chance the answer would surprise you, and it has fascinating consequences.
I see I have violated my own precept, "Don't apply math to the spiritual." But I think I did say something to the effect that this is how it seems to me, not that this is the truth.
I understood as much. And yet I still don't see the connection between humans as image-bearers and having a "permanent" existence. Can you make that connection for me, please?
You say that "the punishment for sin ... is death, which is forever." Unless you are an annihilationist, I don't know what you are saying, quite.
Whether or not I am an annihilationist should be irrelevant to my defense of annihilationism. I can also argue for young-earth creationism without affirming that view myself.
As for what I was saying, my hope is that what I said above made it clear. Eternal death is being metaphysically separated from God. There is no resurrection or any kind of life beyond that point; the wicked perish and there is no coming back from that. They are gone, forever.
If wrath is of itself an attribute of God, then it is not without all the other attributes of God. But maybe it is only God's dealing with sin, perhaps just our way of looking at his acts of justice.
That did not deal with the point raised by Stott, namely, that God's anger is poured out and spent. Without begging the question, where does scripture provide an example of God's anger being ceaselessly poured out?
